Li na tradução portuguesa. Muito divertido, achei a história bem compreensível, apesar de ser meio doida, pude imaginar a coisa toda sendo encenada num palco. As notas são eruditas e em geral ajudam, mas 20% delas é desnecessária e atravanca a leitura da peça, o que reduz o impacto cômico.

This review is really just an essay on the intentions of Aristophanes, you have been forewarned.

Under the guise of an argument for ‘peace’ Aristophanes criticises the apparatus of the Athenian democratic state. I feel confident enough to assert Aristophanes’ underlying intent because his authorial voice is particularly present in this play. For example, at one point Aristophanes hijacks Dikaiopolis’ speech by stating ”’If, though a beggar, I make bold to speak’ – before the Athenian people about matters of state – and that when I’m a comic poet” (495-500). The literal translation of this last clause would be “when composing a comedy” and as such, it only makes sense as having been said by Aristophanes (Dikaiopolis is an old country farmer and no poet). Aristophanes seems to speak through the Leader of the Chorus of Acharnians too, when it is said that “this splendid, valiant poet, whom danger could not fright, out of telling the Athenians what was true and fair and right” (645-650). At this point in history Aristophanes was being persecuted by the demagogue Cleon for slandering the city. These taunts about Aristophanes’ own affairs permeate the play and serve to remind us that Aristophanes used his comedy as a platform to express his critical political opinions.

From the beginning of the play Dikaiopolis blames the Council (named as the Executive in my edition), for the continuation of the Peloponnesian war - he exclaims that he will not be quiet “not until the Executive commit us to a debate on peace” (60-61). We hear of his frustration again when he asks “are the Executive going to sit by and do nothing while I’m maltreated like this by barbarians in my own country” to which he receives “[no answer]” (165-170). The Council in question was comprised of ten tribal delegations who managed the Council for one tenth of the year each. The members of the tribal delegations were chosen by lot, could only serve on the Council twice in their life, and the Council-leader was changed every day. The main function of this Council was to propose laws to the Assembly to be voted on. This complicated system was introduced to reduce the ability of people to become ‘career politicians’ and to stop them garnering too much of an influence within the system. The success of this is a subject of debate. Poorer tribe members were probably less likely to put their name forward in order to be chosen to serve on the Council since it required a sizeable time-commitment that they could not waste, having to tend to their farms/work for a living. So we see, the wealthy were already more likely to be members of the Council, and therefore more likely to serve their own interests. Dikaiopolis, an old farmer, being literally ignored by the Council is symbolic of the entrenched dis-interest in ‘lower class’ concerns from the Council.

Having established a criticism of the Council, let us turn to Aristophanes’ comments on the Athenian ambassadors. Throughout The Acharnians there is a sustained criticism of the Athenian envoys who Aristophanes presents as taking their pay of two drachma a day, enjoying the foreign luxuries and coming back having not even secured the assistance of the states they were despatched to flatter. Beyond simply pointing out the injustice of the lazy ambassadors Aristophanes is criticising another aspect of the Athenian state; the ambassadors were able to swindle public money because of the ill-informed “gawping” Assembly (130-135). The Assembly, who voted upon the laws proposed by the Council, was comprised of any 18+ male citizen of any income-level. The Assembly had the final say on electing officials and as such, must have agreed to sustain the lifestyles of these ambassadors. In this way, we see that the ambassadors can only manipulate the state because the state allows itself to be manipulated.

Dikaiopolis’ condemnation of demagoguery is another way in which Aristophanes points out the flaws within the Athenian democratic system. Dikaiopolis attributes the beginning of the Peloponnesian war to the intrigues of the demagogue Pericles and his concubine. Here Aristophanes must be careful. He explicitly states that “some Athenians, mind you, not Athens, remember that, not the City – but a bunch of good-for-nothing individuals, worthless counterfeit foreigners, bad coins through and through” are the ones who caused the war (515-520). He has to be careful not to criticise the state, as that could land him in more political trouble, hence the his enthusiasm in blaming individuals rather than the democratic city – by doing this his words can’t be used against him in a court of law. Nonetheless, it doesn’t take much to see that by criticising the demagogues Aristophanes is, again, criticising the system that allowed demagogues to take advantage of such a platform

Finally, we see that Aristophanes also portrays nearly all the Athenian characters as selfish. The Chorus lament that “no one is willing to help any-one else” (210); Dikaiopolis is only interested in securing peace for his own family; the ambassadors prefer the continuation of war for the continuation of their two drachma pay and informers are rife in Athens “in search of someone to denounce” in order to get a slice of their property (907). Indeed, near the end of the play Aristophanes has Dikaiopolis mimic Lamachus’ every line, which serves to show they are not so different as one may think. Lamachus (the General) got his continuation of war and therefore continuation of pay meanwhile Dikaiopolis has secured his personal peace, and “how peace wins him many a fine business deal” (974). In the end, Aristophanes shows us that even our protagonist is enveloped in self-interest. The point of the play was not, after-all, to promote peace but instead to turn a light on the institutions of Athenian democracy that were used by all to selfish ends, to the eventual demise of Athens.

A tale of how peace, at any cost, is better than war. I think...

Complaining about Aristophanes being silly seems rather redundant, not when his other plays have dogs on trial and literature battles in Hell. Aristophanes is silly and that's half the joy of him, but The Archarnians takes it too far.

If there's a plot to this, it happens in the first half: Good citizen Dikaiopolis attempts to end the Peloponnesian War by secretly making a treaty. He then tries to defend his actions with some nuanced arguments on the profiteering of war, and a slight detour as he takes the piss out of  Euripides, Aristophanes' favourite hobby. Dikaiopolis wins the debate and we now have peace.

And then it doesn't stop, carrying on with pointless antics, all of which Dikaiopolis calls great examples of how wonderful this new peace is, such as:
-A solider and a citizen compare how good their day was to contrast peace time and war. The solider is bloody and injured from battle and the citizen is drunk, with two hot dancing girls in his arms. In terms of arguments, it's pithy at best.
-A new free market has opened, where Athenians and non-Athenians can openly sell their wares. This includes a penniless parent selling his adult daughters, who enthusiastically pretend to be pigs so they can escape starvation. It all sounds very lovely, truly...

The second half just feels incoherent and the whole play reminded me of that other bag of lunacy,  Ubu Roi. It's more mean spirited zaniness than effective farce, and the highlight of the ridiculous for me was when a man tries to escape the wrath of an Athenian mob by claming he's took a hostage, their city's truest love: coal. And by that I mean he holds up a coal scuttle and threatens to stab it. The Athenians know it's just a coal scuttle. This plan actually works. The coal scuttle is also wearing a dress. It's Mighty Boosh levels of surreal, but I admit I laughed because it was just so dumb.

In his defence, this is one of Aristophanes' earliar plays and the oldest surviving, but I can't quite understand what he was saying here. Yes, it's anti-war, and some of the pro-peace arguments are quite valid, but the satire feels weak in the first half and nonexistent afterwards. Ultimately, I found most of The Acharnians too daft to appreciate.

I'm going to be honest, this is the least memorable book I have ever read, and it hurts me that Aristophanes would write such a bad book because he has some great books, some of my favourites but this one is just not it!

I'm not sure who translated the copy I read. If I could remember, I'd tell you to avoid them. I am a fan of Greek tragedy and comedy. But this was awful. I know it was the translator's fault. Everything rhymed in English. He worked too hard to make it all rhyme in English, which made it cheesy and horrible and just unbearable. Someday I'll find another translation, and Aristophanes will hopefully be redeemed.

7/9/22

this is so chaotic and i adore it

i don't think ancient comedies are for me at this point

Redeemed by Dikaiopolos' mocking perversions of Lamachus' slave-directed orders; and, the concluding juxtaposition of consequences befalling the aforementioned, Lamachus meted out suffering for his martial proclivity, Dikaiopolos pleasure for his pacifism(which in turn betrays Aristophanes Anti-war partialiality(which was intended)).

Eu lembrava de gostar mais de Aristófanes. Não sei se foi a tragédia ou a idade. Não sei se foi o encanto com As Rãs e As Nuvens, especialmente interessantes pra mim por causa da filosofia, mas essa aqui foi custosa.

After reading many greek tragedies, I started with greek comedies.

This is an ok play, which the author, which has personal issues with Cleon, a pro-war leader. Aristophanes is against the Peloponnesian War, which is the main plot here, depicting his stance.

The end of the plot is the best part, when Dicaeopolis manages to trade privately with both sides. Lamachus must go to war and Dicaeopolis to a party with girls and wine. Lamachus returns almost dead, and Dicaepolis is drunk and happy, not caring about the war.

Estimated reading time: 2h

Sorry guys this went over my head and I couldn’t follow